Talk:USS Defiant (NCC-1764)
Removed Okay, who the hell removed my mirror universe reference! It's being filmed at this moment! :That was Cid Highwind he also left you a note at the ip you were using; "User talk:24.252.81.91". Tyrant 23:19, 24 Jan 2005 (CET)Tyrant ::This topic falls under: Memory Alpha:Spoiler policy --- Gvsualan :::Yes, that was me... Please read the pages that Tyrant and Gvsualan linked to, especially the Spoiler policy of Memory Alpha. You are more than welcome to add this information after the episode aired, but not before. -- Cid Highwind 00:22, 2005 Jan 25 (CET) C.Q.D. I don't remember exactly how it was worded, but I remember Archer saying the Tholians sent a false Distress call through the rift to attract ships. This is probably (or did) attract the Defiant, but I'm not sure how to add this... (Of course, a reference to ) -AJHalliwell 04:11, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) :Easy enough. I've taken care of it. :) —Ian Adams 14:06, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) Vintak system? The system where the Defiant was being held was spoken on-screen as the "Vintak" system, but I'm not sure as to the spelling. Perhaps someone can find a script or something? I didn't want to make it a link until the spelling was right. PNA Latter section dealing with IAM,D II needs a general cleanup and removal of parts describing the events of the episode rather than what's relevant to the ship. -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 19:13, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) :I did what I could (as 216.87.197.27...didn't know I was signed out, oops)...any better? --Brad Rousse 22:13, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) Defiant's registry number :(moved from Talk:Constitution_class) It generally thought that the Defiant s registry number is NCC-1764, which I believe originated with Bjo Trimble's Concordance, but this has never been established in any episode or film (though it might soon be established in "In a Mirror, Darkly").- :Has it ever been determined why the other ships named Defiant (DS9) did not use the same registry number and letter scheme as with the Enterprise? This has always bothered me. - ::because the Enterprise's are ::1. the name of at least 5 Starfleet's "flagship" starting with NX-01, NCC-1701, NCC-1701-A, NCC-1701-D, NCC-1701-E, it can be assumed the B & C are as well, ::2. not only that but the Enterprise has/is a Legacy name for us Humans (both US & UK, had ships named Enterprise) ::3. Kirk's ship(s) alone saved earth in ST:TMP, ST:TWOK, ST:TUC, (1,2,6) one could also say it saved earth in ST:TSS, ST:TVH (3,4) {if Kirk did not steal the NCC-1701 in 3, the Klingons might have got the Genesis blueprints, and Kirk's crew would have been stuck on Earth when the Whale Probe arrived, so even after it's "death" it saved the universe. ::4. if that dosen't mean anything then Archer's Enterprise being the ship that created the Federation that Kirk's ship served should at least have 1 ship named after it (the only bug i had/have is Archer's ship is a NX class the 1 one hence NX-01, all the other Enterprise's should have the number NCC-01, A,B,C,D,E,J, or the creators of Enterprise should have called Archer's ship the NX-1701) ::5. and if that's not good for you then the "real world" answer is the Saga started with the USS Enterprise, and to keep fan's of TOS happy the "great bird of the galaxy" wanted all the main ships on his show called Enterprise, think about it Voyager was created after his death, and would have failed if 7of9 didn't show up with her "sex" appeal (i loved Kes more the the borg-babe) ::Actually it gets weirder, in the technical manual from 1975, the NCC-1764 is actually a different ship the USS Galina. Though the Defiant is not listed in the catalog of named ships. (StarkeRealm 09:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)) :::NCC-1764 does seem a bit high for a Constitution class, since this would make her the 65th ship of the class (assuming that the Constitutions were "Class 17 Starships"). If the line saying that there are "Only a dozen like her [the Enterprise NCC-1701] in the fleet." is correct, then that means that either Starfleet's yards were very busy during the TOS period, or my "Class 17" theory about ship numbers is wrong. Of course, the Constellation was NCC-1017 not NCC-1710, so my theory may be out anyway (it came from the TOS Tech Manual).--Indefatigable 21:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC) ::::The method of assigning registry numbers has never been established in canon, so all of this is pure speculation.--31dot 21:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC) In a Mirror, Darkly CGI Constitution Class :(moved from Talk:Constitution_class) Would anyone like to mention under Background information that a CGI rendering of the Constitution was developed for In A Mirror Darkly, Parts I and II? - :no, because it wasn't, it was a touch-up job to a model that had been created for private use prior the episode having been planned at all, if I recall the story correctly.-- 17:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC) Sequential ordering "Arrived in the mirror universe, where it was discovered that...", wait a second. Discovered by whom? The audience? I was thinking that the article could be restructured with an omnipotent vantage point, ie: divuldge informaiton sequentially, rather than in our gradual understanding from episode order. So the article would describe the signal as arriving from the mirror universe, before describing the attempted rescue by Kirk and his Enterprise. :I personally don't have a problem with the structure as it is. But that's just my view. --From Andoria with Love 07:36, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC) ::Here's what I was thinking with the sequencing of the article: In 2268, the Defiant responded to a distress call in an unexplored sector, claimed by the Tholian Assembly. The distress signal was designed by Tholians in the Mirror Universe as a siren to attract ships. The signal was sent via an interphasic rift created by detonating a tri-cobalt warhead within the gravity well of a dead star (ENT: "In a Mirror, Darkly"). Shortly after entering the region, the Defiant crew began experiencing sensory distortion, and insanity quickly spread throughout the ship. The ship's medical surgeon was unable to determine what was happening, and eventually the insanity induced by the phenomenon lead the crew to kill each other. ::The Defiant emerged in the mirror universe during the 22nd century. Soon after, the Tholians of the mirror universe took the ship to a drydock built into an asteroid-moon in orbit around a gas giant in the Vintaak system. A salvage operation began, but was unable to finish when the ship was stolen by Commander Jonathan Archer of the ISS Enterprise (NX-01). (ENT: "In a Mirror, Darkly") :: Moved from article 1-3 is information that, if correct, should be a part of the ''Class-article instead. There's already an image of the patch further down the page, so I just removed that instead of moving it to somewhere else. -- Cid Highwind 15:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC) : I've also removed the following from the article: :* "A fan explanation on how to accomodate the three apparently conflicting fates of the Defiant is as such: When the Defiant became trapped within the subspace interphase, it was affected by a subspace anomaly causing a subspace schism, resulting in three dimensional variants to manifest, similar to what affected Voyager ( ) or Kira Nerys ( ). One version was recovered by the Tholians of the Mirror Universe in 2155, a second recovered by the USS Enterprise in the 2260s, and a third by the USS Da Vinci in 2376." : I'm really not sure the purpose behind it, or what apocryphal source it is derived from, but I can't see a reason to keep it on the main page in its current form. --Alan 08:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC) DYK suggestion That the original starship ''Defiant'''s officially recognized registry number NCC-1764 was derived from a FASA role playing game. The authors of the Star Trek Encyclopedia decided to use it when they were making their shiplist :Someone just revealed that FASA mightve gotten 1764 from an earlier "Making of reference" anyone know if this is true? -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 21:41, 11 Feb 2005 (GMT) ::Check if there's a source for this first. -- Cid Highwind 23:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC) ::: AFAIK, the Defiant was never part of the original suggested Starship lists as published in The Making of Star Trek, since it was obviously only 'invented' for "The Tholian Web". The registry actually originates with the infamous Greg Jein article in T-Negative, 27 April 1973. Two quotes (emphasis mine): :::* "In going through a number of scripts, I came accross a few additional starship names. ... The U.S.S. Scimitar was changed to U.S.S. Defiant in "The Tholian Web".' ::: Then he goes on to introduce his self-described "dazzling display of illogic", namely matching his arbitrary list of starships with the Starbase 11 chart in a completely arbitrary way, resulting in the registry numbers that are used by FASA and eventually Okuda. But he only includes the 'original' Starships for that list, and not the ''Defiant and several others. So, when he eventually produces his 'complete' Starship listing, he adds: :::* "A projected list of starship registry. Many of the names and numbers are autocratic additions, but I have included the aforestated "official" names as well. You are of course, free to regard this with approval, disapproval or indifference." ::: And then there, in that list, he indeed introduces NCC-1764 for the USS Defiant, even adding that it's a Mk IX Deep Space Cruiser. ::: Oh... I just realized the full text is available at TrekPlace. ::: -- Harry ''t'' 23:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC) Sidebar Information Shouldn't this include information from the mirror universe as well? I mean, as far as it's status, the year, and affiliation? While it is debatable as to what the affiliation could actually be (A reference to Empress Sato at least, might be good). The status could be active for the 2155 mention, as it is active, as far as being in operation be a select few, at least. --Terran Officer 07:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC) Time dilation retcon? At the risk of creating another controversy, does anybody have an explanation for how Kirk & Co can beam across (ditto Sisko & the Gang) & meet themselves, but Archer finds a ship displaced, oh, 100yr...? (Besides careless or lazy writers, I mean, which I suspect was the real reason....) Guardian of the Sector hailing frequencies open 17:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC) :Because one is a connection between two universes at the "same" point in time, and the other one is a connection between two universes at "different" points in time? If we accept that one can travel between universes, and one can travel in time, then we should be able to accept that it is also possible to do both at the same time... No "retconning", no "lazy writing", no "carelessness" going on here. -- Cid Highwind 17:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC) Temporal Violation #17? is post- , and if Jennifer knew her history this topic would likely have come up in her visit to Jake. And after all, Kirk did speed the Defiant along. - Korora 03:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC) : Huh? --Alan 03:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC) ?New Timeline Mirror Universe? After seeing Star Trek (film), I thought about the fact that because of various time travel events the point of incursion (2233) may not be the point of divergence, despite the writers claims. This may also include a change in the mirror universe's timeline. If the events of happen at all in the new timeline, then the mirror Archer might have gotten his hands on a USS Defiant similar in design to that of the . Or, he would not have gotten any ship from the Tholians. In either case, Archer's life might be completely different in a "new timeline" mirror universe. In the case where they never got the Defiant, then Hoshi Sato may never have become Empress. I write this in hopes that it might give some ideas to people, possible the next films writers, about all of the possible effects of Nero's incursion and about how that could use those ideas in writing the next film. Even if they just mention something to the effect of "the Enterprise just cleared Tholian space, the ship was lost with all hands" or another possibility that in 2268 the Defiant was no where near Tholian space so it never went to the 22nd Century mirror universe. Vern4760 19:26, January 22, 2010 (UTC) :An interesting theory, however unless it was discussed by someone involved in Trek it can't be in the article.--31dot 20:20, January 22, 2010 (UTC) Wouldn't that mean that the mirror universe had its own version of the alternate reality, but caused by the defiant from that reality to emerge in the mirror universe? Also, the arrival of the defiant in 2155 of the mirror universe implies it alters the mirror universe's timeline by introducing the constitution-class about 100 years, changing its timeline so that technological progress occurred faster, but that's speculation ( 07:00, August 13, 2016 (UTC)) the arrival of the defiant created an alternate timeline. After all, in "Mirror, Mirror" and "Crossover" it was established that first contact from anything from the prime universe in mirror universe occurred in 2267.( 22:34, August 18, 2016 (UTC)) Removed 2 I removed the following passage of text from the bg info area: "While there has been a long line of British naval vessels to bear the name ''Defiance, including a torpedo school ship and three United States naval vessels, there never was an in real life. There was a fictional Defiant in the movie (based on the Frank Tilsey novel Mutiny), which may have been the namesake for the Constitution-class ship." The removal is because the info seems much more relevant to the article on the HMS ''Defiant and because the only info about this Defiant is speculative. --Defiant 09:43, May 29, 2012 (UTC) Removed 3 :"... though, interestingly enough, "In A Mirror, Darkly, Part II"'s conclusion does not rule out the possibility of the ''Defiant being returned to the rift."'' There's nothing in the episode to suggest it may have somehow been "returned to the rift", and we don't need to pander to the novels. - Mitchz95 (talk) 01:03, December 18, 2012 (UTC) Layout of Page I find the layout of this page very odd. It has two sidebars for the ship. Shouldn't there not just be one containing all the information such as both operators of the ship with the owner of the ship being the UFP. Also the first header of Alternate Timelines is all that is need rather than having two headers, the other being the Mirror Universe Header. The Defiant Class page is a good example as it covers very much the same thing, the same being in both the normal reality and Mirror Universe --BorgKnight (talk) 13:50, May 24, 2013 (UTC) :I agree with that. There are rare cases where we talk about two different subjects on a single page - in which case, multiple sidebars are still ugly, but somewhat necessary. Here, we are talking about a single subject, the only "problem" being the point of view. From a main universe point of view, the ship was lost in 2268, while from the mirror universe point of view, it appeared with unknown origin. I think we should care about readability more than a perfect separation of different POVs, here - which means that we should get rid of the second sidebar and (where necessary) move information from there to the text. The second banner should also be removed. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 13:58, May 24, 2013 (UTC) ::(ec)I removed the header. 31dot (talk) 13:59, May 24, 2013 (UTC) :::And I've removed the second sidebar. The info there was moved to the one at the top of the page. - Mitchz95 (talk) 14:29, May 24, 2013 (UTC) Great stuff guys. That was fast ha ha --BorgKnight (talk) 15:29, May 24, 2013 (UTC) DVD? :On the Star Trek DVD, the special features reveal that the USS Defiant of the alternate reality caused by Nero's arrival in the 23rd century, while maintaining the same registry, is a Mayflower-type starship. Not the one I have. Is there more than one DVD version of ? - Mitchz95 (talk) 16:41, May 24, 2013 (UTC) :There are at least two versions of the DVD set. A single disc and a three-disc special edition. -- sulfur (talk) 17:07, May 24, 2013 (UTC) Behind the scene images Should behind the scene images be allowed on the page, in particular the image of the bridge and the dedication plague. I thought such images aren't allowed outside of background information and real world articles. --BorgKnight (talk) 03:28, December 25, 2013 (UTC) :It's OK to have such an image within the in-universe section if it depicts more clearly something poorly seen in canon(such as a dedication plaque). Further, in the case of the plaque, the image was provided by a Trek staff member (Mike Sussman) who can personally verify that it was used on the set. 31dot (talk) 04:07, December 25, 2013 (UTC) Ah I see. Ok so but I would said then the bridge image should replaced as there are plenty of images of the bridge, be it with characters in them as well but I don't think it is right to be putting too many behind the scene images within the in-universe section of an article. --BorgKnight (talk) 04:12, December 25, 2013 (UTC) :Well, the image is more clearly depicting the bridge(i.e. without characters) for illustrative purposes. It's beneficial to have an image like that which makes a clearer illustration. 31dot (talk) 04:27, December 25, 2013 (UTC) Hmmmm, well yes I do agree that it gives a clearer depiction of the bridge. But I still don't agree. I think that in-universe sections should not have behind the scene images in them, they should be kept to the background section. It is what happens on most pages expect for to a great extent the dedication plaque comparison page. From reading this section such things should be confined to the background section. --BorgKnight (talk) 04:36, December 25, 2013 (UTC) ::I figured this should be pointed out now: the intent of the "clearer images from supplementary sources that do not break the POV can be used in-universe" was for stuff displayed on screens and similar things in the background or otherwise not clearly seen, but the wording was left open enough to allow wiggle room for things other than that to be used provided a case could be made for it. - 05:39, December 25, 2013 (UTC) Very well. That's grand then. :)--BorgKnight (talk) 05:42, December 25, 2013 (UTC) ::In this case I really don't see the harm with using the current image, but then again I'm not really sure why we would "need" to use this image over one directly from the show. - 06:01, December 25, 2013 (UTC) Well that further on was my objection. I understand with the dedication plaque as you don't even get a clear view of it during the episodes but the bridge is shown full well in them. 31dot gave the point that the current image of the bridge gives a clearer depiction of it which it does. But I feel in a situation where there is an available image from an episode it is the image from the episode that should be used over a behind the scenes image. --BorgKnight (talk) 07:40, December 25, 2013 (UTC) Inaccurate This page is filled with incalculable inaccuracies. Having reviewed all Star Trek canon material dozens of times over, the divergence from this and the true facts of DS:9 and ENT episodes is frankly astounding. It's like someone watched it once and posted from memory. I'm declaring the whole page as needing revision; pending my fixes and/or some other poster fixing the issues. 09:37, March 26, 2016 (UTC) Status Shouldn't the status be changed to lost because it was lost instead of going missing? ( 07:07, August 13, 2016 (UTC)) Removal of Definat logo I propose removing assignment patch as it should be the Starfleet delta, which is reinforced by the memo to Bill Theiss. I'm aware of the evidence in a Mirror Darkly, however, the evidence in The Tholian Web shows that the Defiant doesn't have a unique patch Jamesmstewart (talk) 01:22, January 27, 2019 (UTC) : I expect to see more of this sort of edit because of a recent article on StarTrek.com that engages in wide-ranging "in-universe" speculation based on a... creative reading of a single real-world memo, all to play a parlor game of explaining the different insignia on Starfleet character costumes from the '60s series in a way that contorts itself to avoid the obvious. : However: please realize that StarTrek.com as CBS's promotional Web site, and artifacts such as production memos, are generally not considered usable sources for anything except the "production" and "background" sections of certain articles. A great many things will be found on CBS's official promotional site for Star Trek, as well as in various memos and other ephemera of the show's production, that don't serve as accurate or adequate sources for this wiki. Outside of sections for production information or background, this wiki tends to stick to what we directly observe in shows and movies, sometimes supplemented with information from scripts or script drafts, which are noted as such in the article's body text when they're used as sources. -NokiaTouchscreen (talk) 05:20, February 9, 2019 (UTC) : In a wider sense, the article on StarTrek.com is a very speculation-heavy piece of work in general. Speaking as someone who's worked professionally in records and archives, I'd call it pretty poor research. It attempts to extrapolate from a single memo, sent by one person at one point in the show's history, a sort of comprehensive "in-universe" counter-theory to the idea of assignment patches. I doubt it would convince any TV historian as to what the people behind the show had in mind across its entire production history, during which a number of different insignia were introduced in ways that don't really support the article's argument. Really, that article seems more aimed at overly plaintive fans who want to know, e.g. why Starfleet officers on Star Trek: Discovery wear what's "supposed" to be the Enterprise insignia in that fictional "era" (or at least what it's supposed to be in those fans' own minds). : Given the nature of StarTrek.com (it is owned and run by CBS Entertainment), the article is likely intended to promote an "in-universe", working-backwards explanation for why insignia from around the same time in Star Trek's fictional world, as seen in more recent CBS productions, no longer show the variety they did on the original '60s TV show, instead sticking to the "delta" insignia that many more people in their audience would recognize. While I can understand CBS trying to satisfy persnickety fans by digging through their archives to find a single source to support their decision, then holding it up and waving it under those nitpickers' noses on their official site, the real reason is easy to understand: people know that delta, and it's going to be confusing to a lot of Star Trek fans if they don't put it on costumes on their new Star Trek show. Plus, it's a pretty smooth design in terms of branding for the franchise. : Star Trek is like any long-running franchise in fiction: it's inconsistent in places, and even directly contradicts itself in some of those places. It's not the job of this wiki to invent or promote explanations to "fix" these cases, and that's a very good thing. -NokiaTouchscreen (talk) 05:20, February 9, 2019 (UTC)